Because personally, like a lot of my fellow countrymen these days, I think the mass belief in some book written at an undetermined time many years ago is a sort of gigantic cult. It mystifies me how any sane person can believe in many of the events in the Bible and, if this fella existed, he was one of many thousands of preachers the world has seen.

As for his rivalfor adherents, Mohammed is more historically recorded. But why supposedly sane and intelligent people enslave themselves to someone's thoughts 1400 years ago is equally baffling. I'll bet - when you get there guys, there are no virgins and no wine!!

Because personally, like a lot of my fellow countrymen these days, I think the mass belief in some book written at an undetermined time many years ago is a sort of gigantic cult. It mystifies me how any sane person can believe in many of the events in the Bible and, if this fella existed, he was one of many thousands of preachers the world has seen.

Belief in Jesus as a divine figure is one thing, belief in Jesus as a ln ordinary person is another thing. Simply because his followers elevated and ordinary man into some divine being does not mean Jesus did not exist. Roman Emperors were sometimes alleged to heal blind people, and legends have arisen of real, known historical person's performing miracles.

The evidence for a historical Jesus is better than many other historical persons whose existence are accepted without question, and is as good as most ancient historical person's. Only rulers and a few other ancient persons are better documented.

As for his rivalfor adherents, Mohammed is more historically recorded. But why supposedly sane and intelligent people enslave themselves to someone's thoughts 1400 years ago is equally baffling. I'll bet - when you get there guys, there are no virgins and no wine!!

Actually, it is a common myth that Muhammad is more historically recorded than Jesus. Despite his being a ruler, and supposedly wrote letters to the Byzantine Emporror at the time and other rulers, we have no contemporary account of Muhammad. His first biography wasn't written until a 100 years after his death, and we no longer even have that, just quotes of it, and the earliest biography we do have is 200 years after Muhammad birth, much worse than for Jesus.

And unlike.for Jesus, we generally lack.a lot of independent archaeology or writings from.the time and place where he lived, that could help confirm what the alleged historical accounts of Muhammad. What little we have does not confirm the historical accounts of Mohammed, there is no evidence of the Jews or Christian groups in Mecca during Muhammad's time, and Mecca was not a great interantional trading city as is often portrayed, international trade with India and the Mideast going by sea at the time and bypassing Mecca, nor is Mecca well positioned on.logicsl trading routes.

The very earliest physical records of the Arab invasion and conquest of the Mideast don't mention Muhammad's name, we don't find it minted coins, official inscriptions thatwe can date, in legal documents like the Pact of Umar, which spelled out the rights and duties of the conquered Christians. We do find Muhammad's name on later coins and and documents

The earliest solidly dated references to Muhammad orrcur around the time the Dome of the Rock was built in Jerusalem near the end of 7th cenrury, about 60 years after Muhammad's death in far off Mecca. All this lack of information is surprising, given that Muhaamad wasn't a poor carpenter with a lot of equally poor followers of an illegal organization, but a ruler and a founder of an increasingly expansive empire. Even in his hometown, we don't find contemporary inscriptions of him lquding his deeds, and while there is an alleged tomb of Muhammad in Mecca, no outside archaeologist has dated the tomb.

Muhammad could be a real historical person, but my view was that Muhaamad as we know him was an invented person. The Arabs who had recently conquered the Mideast, decided that they needed their own national religious leader and religion. The Christians had Jesus, the Jews had Moses, and the Persians had Zoarater,.and so since they were now a major power in the region, they needed their own religious leader and religion, something that wasn't one of the existing ones, so the Arabs wouldn't be beholden to any of the conquered people for their religion. If Muhammad existed, he would have born little resemblence to Muhammad as we know him, not being the all conquering religious leader. But all this is just my opinion, and I know most scholars don't buy it, although there are a few. "Crossroads to Islam" by Yehuda Nevo is a good book to read that discusses the archaeological evidence of the early Arab conquest , and not rely on Muslim accounts. )

Christ is supposed to have - maybe, perhaps - been born 6 years Before Christ, not to have died 6 years Before Christ.

At that time many different calendars were used in the region, and years were counted from different events.

For example the Caesarean era of Antioch counted the years from G. Julius Caesar granting autonomy to Antioch after defeating Pompey in the Battle of Pharsalus in 48 BCE.

The Era of Actium commemorated the Battle of Actium on 2 September 31 BCE. The Roman era of Actium started on January 1, 30 BCE, while the Egyptian Era of Actium started with the first day of Thoth, or 29 August, and the Greek Era of Actium started on 2 September.

The Augustan Era counted the years from 27 BCE, the First Constitutional Settlement of Augustus, when the first emperor was granted, among other things, the title of Augustus by the Senate and People of Rome.

It is common to date the beginning of the Roman Empire to the First Constitutional Settlement of Augustus, in 27 BCE. though the the Second Constitutional Settlement of Augustus in 23 BCE has also been suggested.

There were many other calendar eras used at that time, the Caesarean, Actian, and Augustan Eras are merely three that start close to 1 AD.

Dionysius Exiguus (c. 470-c. 544) was a monk in Scythia Minor (Romania and Bulgaria) who moved to Rome about 500.

In the Roman Empire, years were designated by the names of the two consuls for the year, or by the regnal years of the Emperor, or by years AUC since the legendary foundation of Rome, or by many local dating systems. Christians often dated years from various calculated dates for the Biblical Creation of the world, or Anno Mundi dating. One important activity for Christians scholars was calculating the correct date to celebrate Easter each year (heaven forbid that it be celebrated on the wrong day, they thought). And they complied Easter tables, showing the proper date to celebrate Easter in each of a number of future years.

One dating system at the time was the Era of the Martyrs or the Era of Diocletian, which was used in Alexandria, Egypt.

The great Emperor Diocletian had a very major role in saving the Roman Empire from the Crisis of the Third Century and restoring peace to millions of people. He reigned from 20 November 284 to 1 May 305. The Egyptian new year was 1 Thoth or 29 August, so the Era of Diocletian began on 29 August 284 or 285. The Era of Diocletian is also known as the Era of the Martyrs, because of the Diocletianic Persecution of Christians from 303 to 312, which produced many Christian martyrs.

Dionysius Exiguus complied new Easter tables for Rome.

He stated that the present year was the consulship of Probus Junior, which was 525 years since the incarnation of Christ, and numbered the years in his Easter table from the incarnation of Christ.

The Anglo-Saxon historian the Venerable Bede, who was familiar with the work of Dionysius Exiguus, used Anno Domini dating in his Ecclesiastical History of the English People, completed in 731. In this same history, he also used another Latin term, ante vero incarnationis dominicae tempus anno sexagesimo ("in fact in the 60th year before the time of the Lord's incarnation"), equivalent to the English "before Christ", to identify years before the first year of this era.[25] Both Dionysius and Bede regarded Anno Domini as beginning at the incarnation of Jesus, but "the distinction between Incarnation and Nativity was not drawn until the late 9th century, when in some places the Incarnation epoch was identified with Christ's conception, i.e., the Annunciation on March 25" (Annunciation style).[26]

Alcuin of York (c. 735-804), a famous Anglo-Saxon clergyman and scholar, became the head of the palace school of Charlemagne in 782 and a leader in the Carolingian Renaissance. He is credited with introducing AD dating to the court of Charlemagne, from which it gradually spread across western Europe.

In the Iberian Peninsula the Spanish Era or Era of Caesar was used, counting from 38 BCE. The Anno Domini dating system was adopted by Aragon in AD 1349, Valencia in 1358, Castile in 1383, and Portugal in 1422.

The date of birth of Jesus of Nazareth is not stated in the gospels or in any secular text, but most scholars assume a date of birth between 6 BC and 4 BC.[34] The historical evidence is too fragmentary to allow a definitive dating,[35] but the date is estimated through two different approaches – one by analyzing references to known historical events mentioned in the Nativity accounts in the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, and the second by working backwards from the estimation of the start of the ministry of Jesus.[36][37]

Because Herod was supposedly alive when Jesus was born, and possibly for two years afterwards, since the Massacre of the Innocents supposedly included boys two years old and younger, it is generally supposed that Jesus was born before Herod died.

So the date of Herod's death is a major clue to the date of Jesus's birth, and the date of Jesus's birth is a major clue to the date of Herod's death. And since I describe it as working both ways, you should realize that both dates are rather uncertain.

If Jesus really was born before Herod died, then Herod must have died after the date - whatever date that was - when Jesus was born. If Herod really was alive after Jesus was born, then Jesus must have been born before the date - whatever date it was - that Herod died. And if Herod the Great actually died before Jesus was born, the Herod in the story of the birth of Jesus perhaps being Herod II Archalus, then the Massacre of the Innocents, if it happened, would have to have been ordered by someone else and not Herod the Great.

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.